The State of Radiologic Teaching Practice in Preclinical Medical Education: Survey of American Medical,Osteopathic, and Podiatric Schools |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio;2. Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio;1. Rush University, Chicago, Illinois;2. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri;3. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois;4. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, District of Columbia;5. Department of Radiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York;6. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Hospitals, Ann Arbor, Michigan;7. Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California;8. Elucid Bioimaging Inc, Wenham, Massachusetts;9. Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina;1. Houston VA Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas;2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA;3. Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA;4. Division of Radiology Informatics, Department of Radiology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL;1. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts;2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts;3. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts;4. Harvard School of Public Health, Cambridge, Massachusetts;1. Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio;2. Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio;1. Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana;2. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts;3. Advanced Medical Imaging Consultants, PC, Aurora, Colorado;4. University of Colorado School of Medicine, Fort Collins, Colorado |
| |
| Abstract: | PurposeThis study describes the state of preclinical radiology curricula in North American allopathic, osteopathic, and podiatric medical schools.MethodsAn online survey of teaching methods, radiology topics, and future plans was developed. The Associations of American Medical Colleges, Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, and Colleges of Podiatric Medicine listing for all US, Canadian, and Puerto Rican schools was used for contact information for directors of anatomy and/or radiology courses. Letters were sent via e-mail to 198 schools, with a link to the anonymous survey.ResultsOf 198 schools, 98 completed the survey (48%). Radiology curricula were integrated with other topics (91%), and taught by anatomists (42%) and radiologists (43%). The majority of time was spent on the topic of anatomy correlation (35%). Time spent teaching general radiology topics in the curriculum, such as physics (3%), modality differences (6%), radiation safety (2%), and contrast use (2%) was limited. Most schools had plans to implement an innovative teaching method in the near future (62%). The major challenges included limits on: time in the curriculum (73%); resources (32%); and radiology faculty participation (30%). A total of 82% reported that their curriculum did not model the suggestions made by the Alliance of Medical Student Educators in Radiology.ConclusionsThis survey describes the current state of preclinical radiology teaching: curricula were nonstandard, integrated into other courses, and predominantly used for anatomy correlation. Other important contextual principles of the practice of radiology were seldom taught. |
| |
| Keywords: | Radiology preclinical medical education |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
